Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill - Standing Committee E

[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome members of the Committee to this sitting. I shall be in the Chair again this afternoon. I hope that people had a restful weekend, particularly the Minister, given his burden of duties. When the Committee adjourned last Thursday, it had made good progress and had completed up to and including clause 22.

Humfrey Malins: On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Thank you for your kind comments. Welcome to the Chair today. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and myself, I offer the Minister our warmest thanks for the kindness and courtesy that he showed yesterday. He made available his officials to take us through some of the new clauses, of which they gave us a very helpful explanation. They were extremely helpful and kind.

Nicholas Winterton: That was not strictly a point of order. However, I was delighted to take it and allow it, because it shows Parliament working at its best, where there is co-operation on a technical and sensitive Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point to the Government.

Clause 23 - Documents produced or found

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 113, in clause 23, page 10, line 33, leave out lines 33 to 41 and insert—
‘(b)if on examination of any document so produced or found the immigration officer is of the opinion that it may be needed in connection with proceedings on or for an offence.’.
I welcome you back to the Chair, Sir Nicholas. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my first speech in a Standing Committee. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I make any procedural errors. The reputation of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality goes before him. I am sure that his friendliness and helpfulness to Opposition Members will mean that I shall not get into too much trouble.
In the past week, I have sat patiently and heard the word “brevity” being used many times in many long speeches. I shall try, as I am used to, to keep matters brief and to the point.
Under the Immigration Act 1971, an immigration officer is already permitted to detain for seven days any document that has been found as a result of an immigration search. The Bill extends that power by  allowing passports or other documents to be detained for any purpose. We are not happy with that possibility. We must limit the powers to detain passports. Identity documents are necessary in everyday life—for example, to provide evidence of housing or to deal with local councils. For the Government to detain passports for any purpose is too overbearing.
Moreover, the measure may discourage people who wish to leave the country from doing so. I shall give one example: a person from Afghanistan, having been refused asylum, wished to return home, because he could not bear being separated from the rest of his family. He had been refused asylum and was without support, so he went to the International Organisation for Migration for assistance with voluntary return to Afghanistan. His documents had been detained, and he was not allowed to leave the country. The Home Office did not give him approval to go, and he received no further information. That was in January 2005.
In September 2005, the person in question sought advice and found that the Home Office had carried out routine checks with the police, and that there was an unspecified problem with his documents. He stated that to the best of his knowledge he had never been in any trouble with the police, and he had never had any reason to believe that there would be any problem with him returning, but he was still not allowed to do so. The IOM said that it would speak to the Home Office and try to resolve the situation, and it found that the Home Office had removed its bar on him travelling, but had not told him so. He is therefore hoping to return to Afghanistan by the end of October. However, the fact that his documents had been detained stopped him from returning home to his country of origin. Clearly, such incidents do not help people who want to return home voluntarily.

Andy Burnham: I welcome hon. Members back to the Committee. It is a pleasure for me, as a fellow MP for the Greater Manchester area, to welcome the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) to the Committee and also his first contribution to the Committee. I speak on behalf of some of my other colleagues in Greater Manchester in wishing him well but hoping that he will stick to the facts, which was not perhaps always the case during the recent general election campaign—[Hon. Members: “Oh.”]—However, we will leave that matter to one side for now.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I say to the Minister that what happened up to 5 May is of no relevance to this Standing Committee. However, I enjoyed his remark.

Andy Burnham: It was a completely gratuitous remark, Sir Nicholas, and I shall move on.
Clause 23 relates to documents produced or found at immigration control—documents produced to an immigration officer. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman’s amendment relates to the existing and long-standing power of an immigration officer to retain a passport or other relevant document on  examination of an arriving or departing passenger. An immigration officer can retain more than just a travel document.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of clause 23 is to rationalise and simplify the existing provisions so that the same procedures apply to the examination and detention of all types of documents. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I explain that at present those powers are laid out under the provisions of paragraph 4 of schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, but a distinction is made between travel documents and “other relevant documents” that may be of use to an immigration officer in their inquiries. Therefore, at present there are two different sets of procedures governing the detention of documents. We believe that it would be easier and more convenient for immigration staff if they could operate under a single code, so the clause rationalises and simplifies those procedures. The clause does give immigration staff powers to detain documents, but those powers already exist—immigration staff could at present detain a document for more than seven days, or until removal.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the example of a case involving someone who was unable to leave the country, but proposed new sub-paragraph (b) states clearly that the document can be detained
“until the person ... is about to depart or be removed following refusal”.
The power exists for documents to be released should the person wish to leave the country.

Neil Gerrard: I understand how proposed new sub-paragraph (b) works, but will the Minister explain how proposed new sub-paragraph (c) works in relation to it, because it appears to give the power for documents to be retained longer than is specified in sub-paragraph (b)? If someone has a suspensive appeal outside the country, would sub-paragraph (c) allow those documents to be retained after the person had left the country, despite what is stated in sub-paragraph (b)?

Andy Burnham: If someone was exercising their right to appeal from outside the country, travel documents would have to be released to them so that they could re-enter the country from which they wanted to make the appeal. A person could not regain entry to the country from which they arrived in the UK if they were not adequately documented on their arrival back in their country.
Sub-paragraph (c) considers the situation in which immigration service staff or the immigration and nationality directorate may wish to hold documents until an appeal is heard on a particular case. That is the scenario that sub-paragraph (c) envisages. In considering fully a case before the asylum and immigration tribunal, the IND would want to hold documents pending full consideration and conclusion of that case.
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which is relevant especially to appeals heard within this country.
The proposed amendment would remove an immigration officer’s existing power to retain a document until a decision is taken on whether to give the person leave to enter or until the time they are about to depart or to be removed from the UK. The current law makes the equivalent provision for passports and other identity documents. Clause 23 simply extends the existing law to other relevant documents to simplify the procedure and make the job easier for front-line staff at immigration control.
The proposed amendment would also remove an immigration officer’s existing power to retain a document while an immigration appeal is pending, as I explained to my hon. Friend. That would prevent the immigration officer from preserving vital relevant evidence in an immigration appeal that is essential fairly to determine the immigration status of the person concerned.
I accept the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech) about the usefulness of documents for people going about their everyday life. Having pushed his patience once, I may do so again by saying that it sounds as though he may be getting to the point where he could support identity cards and their usefulness as an everyday document in dealing with local councils, for example. I commend to him our identity card as a useful document in doing so. He knows that people who have made an asylum claim are issued with documentation to help them with their stay in the country, especially the application registration card. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but people are helped to negotiate their everyday dealings through other such documents.
With those assurances, I hope hon. Members will accept that the clause does nothing more than simplify the existing law.

John Leech: I understand the point being made in relation to the simplification and rationalisation of the procedure, but the Minister has not addressed the issue of passports being retained for any purpose. That is my major concern. I understand the sentiment behind it, but the whole process could be abused and used for other purposes. I would appreciate it if the Minister would devote a minute of his time to explaining how it will not be abused.

Andy Burnham: The purpose of the clause is to give immigration staff, who do an important job in upholding the security of the border, the powers that they need to carry out their functions properly and effectively. The power is in existing legislation. As I explained, the passport can be held up until removal. I want to reassure the hon. Gentlemanthat we would expect that power to be used proportionately and legitimately. The aim would not be unfairly to disadvantage individuals in any way. It would simply be used to help the member of staff carry out his official functions.
The purposes here could also include possible investigation into forgery or document tampering. There can be a wider application than simply examination, which is the point referred to in proposed  new sub-paragraph (a). It might sometimes be necessary to make further inquiries about the integrity of the document or the post that issued the visa included in the document. The role that the immigration officer can play can go wider than a simple examination by hand of the document, which is why the clause is drafted as it is. It was a fair point. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to provide that extra clarification. The clause is non-contentious and simplifies the existing the law. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

John Leech: With that reassurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: This is an important clause and I was interested to hear the amendment proposed to it. The clause deals with powers of immigration officers, of which there are many under existing law, but it prepares us for the time when immigration officers will have devices to scan faces, irises or fingerprints to compare that information with people’s biometric passports or visas. It gives them the power to require people being examined on arrival or departure to undergo scanning in order to provide biometric information.
Broadly speaking, that is to be welcomed, although I should like the Minister to confirm that the power would be applied to British citizens and citizens of other European economic area countries, as well as to other non-EEA nationals. To whom is the power likely to apply? Of course, there are existing powers of examination allowing people to be required by a notice in writing to submit to further examination but not if this would prevent transit passengers or crew from joining their intended ship or aircraft. The clause widens the position.
The second provision in the clause enables an immigration officer to detain a passport for up to seven days to examine it and for longer in other circumstances defined as “any purposes”, which is rather a wide phrase. Passports are, and remain, the property of the issuing Government. Traditionally, Government agencies have appropriately been given limited powers to retain them. Under the 1971 Act an immigration officer is permitted to retain any document as the result of an immigration search for seven days or, if the document is needed for criminal proceedings, until they are satisfied that it will not be so needed. The Bill extends the power by allowing passports or other documents to be retained for “any purpose”—I repeat, a wide phrase—until the grant of leave or the departure of the holder, or until it is decided that the person does not require leave to enter.
One must ask what, if any, prejudice people whose identity documents are held in that way may suffer. There are those who say—I hope that the Minister can help me on this, as they may be right—that those  people will need their proper identity documents in their normal daily lives to prove their identity to landlords, doctors, hospitals, childcare professionals and so on. That problem could be solved if the Minister were to undertake that anyone whose document was taken under those circumstances would have a full photocopy of that document given to them, certified by an official as a true copy, to enable them to establish their identity. That would be a simple process. I shudder when I see a proposal permitting a passport to be retained by the Home Office. We all have experience of passports being lost.
Gwyn Prosser (Dover) (Lab) indicated assent.

Humfrey Malins: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding furiously. Perhaps I do him an unkindness. He is extremely well versed in such matters, and perhaps he intended to shake his head.
The people who work in the immigration service are inevitably hard-working and diligent, and do their best. I have no criticism of them or their integrity, but I have a criticism of the system in which passports get lost and are not found for months.
I want to mention a particular case. I should like the Minister to comment, not necessarily on this particular case, but on the general principle of people being able to lay their hands on their passport quickly. The case involves J, a long-term overstayer, who applied to stay in the UK with her husband, who was settled here. Nothing happened; it was taking for ever to get a response, and in June 2003, J decided to return to Gambia with her British-born, British-citizen children, and apply for entry clearance from there. The Home Office promised to return the passport. It did not, so further inquiries were made, and it said that it would return her passport at the airport. She booked a flight, got to the airport, and there was no passport. It took months before she was given her old passport, by which time it had expired, and was able to submit it to her high commissioner and obtain a new one. She finally travelled from the UK in January 2004. She obtained her entry clearance, although that was not a speedy process either, and in November 2004 was able to return to the UK with her daughters and with leave as a spouse to remain with her husband.
That is a not untypical case, and I venture to suggest that there are hon. Members in this Committee who have, from time to time, telephoned the immigration hotline—a number known only to Members of Parliament, for obvious reasons—and asked the person at the other end, “Where is the passport of my constituent x? They are sick of waiting for it and want to travel.” It can take ages—days, sometimes weeks—for a passport to be located. Sometimes I get an answer to the effect that it is somewhere in the system, and they cannot lay their hands on it. If it takes a Member of Parliament time to get hold of a document, or to get an answer, members of the public are disadvantaged. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some assurance in the stand part debate that systems exist within the Home Office to ensure that there will be availability and accessibility to documents that have been retained indefinitely for any purpose, particularly  for those seeking to travel. In particular, people will obviously need to prove their identity in other walks of life, so why not give them a full, certified photocopy of it?
Finally, I have five questions for the stand part debate. In what circumstances is a passport required with an appeal? When would a person described in proposed new sub-paragraph (c), whose passport is retained beyond the time when he or she is about to depart or to be removed, get their passport back? What will happen in the case of the new out-of-country appeals proposed under clause 1 and in existing cases in which the appeal is out of country? The Minister alluded to that briefly, but can he explain it more fully? Could a passport be retained in any circumstances after a person has returned to their country? What about human rights cases heard out of country because they are certified as clearly unfounded? Would it be possible to retain the passports of those people beyond the time when they leave the UK?
If a passport is returned to a person after their plane has landed in another country or during the journey, who will have the passport in the meantime? Will it always be in the possession of an immigration officer or a consular official? What steps will be taken to ensure that the person gets their passport back and that their safety is not compromised if the handover of the passport is witnessed by local immigration officials, who might take that as suggesting that the person is in trouble with the UK authorities? Those were the queries and points that I wanted to raise in the clause stand part debate.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Minister has had time to give thought to all those questions. I call Mr. Andy Burnham.

Andy Burnham: Thank you, Sir Nicholas.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, because they give me an opportunity to expand on the clause. He is right to say that it contains important provisions. We covered much of proposed new sub-paragraph (4) in earlier exchanges, although I will return to the points on which he asked for clarification. I shall begin, however, by speaking to proposed new sub-paragraph (5), which he is right to say relates to biometric identification and verification. That will significantly enhance the integrity of our border controls. Under later clauses, we shall discuss in more detail our e-borders proposals, but it is right to explain more at this point about how biometric identification systems can enhance border control.
Clause 23 introduces a new power enabling immigration officers to use biometric identifiers to verify the validity of documents—for example, for those with biometric passports or those who have provided biometric data when applying for entry clearance or a visa for the UK. Immigration officers will be able to compare a document against the data collected when the travel document or entry clearance was issued to ensure the document’s authenticity and to verify its holder’s identity.
Initially, the power will be used for people who applied for biometric visas. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have begun to roll out—to use the favourite word of my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality—the biometric visa programme. The first pilot began in Sri Lanka, I believe, but the system is now in use at various locations around the world and is producing interesting and encouraging results. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the direction of travel not only of this Government but of others: biometric visas are slowly but surely being introduced at posts around the world. Yes, the clause will initially relate to the verification of biometric visas, but to answer his main question, it will, in due course, apply to all persons, including UK citizens, with biometrically enabled travel documents, as well as to those who have a biometric visa or about whom biometric information has been recorded.
From next year, the first biometric passports will be issued to UK citizens. The passports will hold a chip that includes facial recognition technology. Over the next two to three years, the passports will be enhanced to become full biometric passports. The hon. Gentleman knows that the requirement for a biometric passport has been laid down by the United States in respect of countries in the visa waiver scheme. However, there is general agreement among the majority of leading countries around the world that we need to take steps towards full biometric passports.
The clause envisages the time when we will all hold biometric travel documents and it gives the power to the immigration officer to verify the person before them at the immigration desk. It gives them the ability to ensure that the reading for the person standing there who places their finger on the machine or looks into the system corresponds with the information held on the chip.
To be clear, the provision significantly enhances the security of travel documents. The strength of the biometric identification system is that people will be unable to hold multiple travel documents. They will be able to register their biometrics only once and therefore the scope to travel on false documents will be severely limited. That is why the clause is important. It will apply generally to holders of all biometric passports in time, and I am grateful to have had the chance to clarify that point.
The hon. Gentleman made a similar point about documents that are needed in everyday life—I believe that was the phrase he used—particularly in relation to the retention of passports by the Home Office. I readily acknowledge, as I did before I joined the Home Office as a junior Minister, that we have all come across cases in which passports or travel documents have gone missing. That is not something that we would consider likely or desirable because it can cause considerable stress to people who need their travel documents. I accept that, but that inconvenience has to be balanced by the need at times for immigration staff to have direct access to those documents in the course of carrying out their duties and by their overwhelming  duty to uphold the integrity of the system. So although I accept that there are unfortunate examples of travel documents going missing, they have to be balanced against a more general duty on members of the immigration service to go about their work.

Humfrey Malins: I imagine that the retention of a document will happen infrequently. In such cases, will the Minister undertake that if it is retained the person will be provided with a certified photocopy to enable him or her to help to establish their identity in other places? Surely that is an easy task.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the power should not be exercised lightly and that it should be used proportionately at all times. As I said to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington it does not extend immigration officers’ powers to retain documents on occasions where they do not currently do so. We would expect them still to carry out their duties reasonably and proportionately.
Although I listened with interest to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Woking about certified photocopies, that could cause an extra administrative burden on the immigration service. So long as people exercise their functions reasonably and take care and so long as systems are put in place to ensure that documents are taken care of when they are in the possession of the immigration and nationality directorate, we can give him the assurances that he wants.

John Leech: A valid point has been made in relation to certified copies of documents. It seems straightforward to make a certified copy of a document that is retained so that someone can use it for the purposes of identity without it being useable as a travel document.

Andy Burnham: I understand the point, but how useful would that document be, given that it is a photocopy? Furthermore, it would not be especially difficult to forge. What practical use would it be for people’s everyday business?
One must look at another scenario. It may not always be practical to issue the person with a copy of the document. Although I do not disagree with the general thrust of the argument, no one wants to burden people unfairly in going about their daily business. That is not our intention. It is not right to legislate for the two or three occasions on which a passport may go missing. We are ensuring that we give people who are doing an important job on behalf of us all the ability to go about their business in a simple way.
I recognise, however, that we should put systems in place which ensure that, where documents are retained, they are safeguarded and proper account of them is kept. There have been instances in which that has not happened. I accept the point, but I am afraid that I do not concede to go so far as to require all documents to be photocopied.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked in what circumstances a passport may be needed in an immigration appeal. The passport or travel document is often relevant to an immigration appeal—for example, in cases in which the nationality of the individual who is appealing is disputed or in which passport stamps are relevant evidence to the claim that is being made. The document is also potential proof of that individual’s identity.
More broadly speaking, immigration service staff retain passports to ensure that, where an appellant loses his or her appeal, he or she can be removed. The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the National Audit Office report on removals. He will know that the need to ensure that people are properly documented can be a frustrating factor in operating an effective removals system. I hope he accepts that the need for proper documentation is an important element of our system.
It is important to stress that the ARC card that is issued to all asylum seekers is meant to fulfil the functions that have been mentioned—that is, the ability to go about one’s daily business and the ability to prove one’s identity. The ARC card is a biometric identity card. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen one, but they are a proof of identity that is not currently available to other citizens.
The hon. Gentleman asked about out-of-country appeals. Depending on the outcome of an appeal, the documents would be held until grant of appeal or removal/departure. That is the case in law at present. The Bill does not substantially change the present system; it simply rationalises the process that is in place. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), I cannot believe that there could be many—if any—circumstances in which travel documents would be retained when a removal had been effected or in which a voluntary return had been made.
It would always be right to enable the individual to receive his or her documents. The hon. Member for Woking asked when people would be given back their documents. That would happen at the point of removal, when the individual has boarded the aircraft to leave the UK. That would be the right time to release the documents. These are points of operation for the immigration service and not for primary legislation. The overall principle is that we should return people’s travel documents to them. As he rightly said, it is not a light thing to take someone’s documents away from them. We should return them when they are no longer of any reasonable use to the immigration service.
The clause is important, particularly in respect of the foundations it lays for biometric passports and visas, which will enhance the documents and give their owners more confidence that their travel documents cannot be abused or used fraudulently by those who take those documents from them. It is an assurance for the Government and for the individual travelling member of the public. It will help us to tackle  document fraud and identity theft, combat illegal immigration and organised crime, and be a deterrent to those who try to enter the country illegally.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Attendance for fingerprinting

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: On the face of it, the clause looks pretty straightforward, but I hope that the stand part debate will give me an opportunity to probe the Minister because its effect is to move the goalposts for a certain category of person. At present, under section 142 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, people who are required to be fingerprinted are allowed to have notice of at least seven days in which to attend and, further, that period cannot begin until at least seven days have passed since the date of the notice. However, the amendment will apply to a certain category—namely asylum seekers and their dependants—and reduce that timing to three days. I want to probe the Government’s intention in seeking to amend the clause on those lines and to raise a couple of the difficulties that might arise from it, chiefly to discover the thinking behind the proposed changes.
The people for whom it is proposed that three days rather than seven will apply are those who have sought recognition as a refugee or asserted that their removal would breach their rights under article 3 of the European convention on human rights, and it includes their dependants. Why is the change proposed and why only in respect of that category of person? What evidence is there that it will make such a difference? Will it truly give the Government the advantage that has merited adding a clause? The logical question stemming from that is: why three days? Why not 24 hours or four days? Is there some magic about the time scale, because three days will cause problems?
What will happen if a person can prove that the notice did not reach him or her until after the date on which that person was required to attend? Sadly, we are all familiar with our postal system, which has deteriorated under the Labour Government. In the old days I could guarantee that the first post would arrive first thing in the morning and the second post in the afternoon, but now I cannot guarantee that it will arrive at any time during the day. If the notice was delayed in the post, for example, what would the situation be? Three days is a very short time.
These are not people that we have tagged or tied down in chains. What would happen if they were temporarily absent from their accommodation for a couple of nights, and therefore did not comply with this new and arduous time limit?
Moreover, if these people are required to travel, which might be the case, what if they do not have the wherewithal to travel to that destination? As I understand it, the consequences of failure to comply with the provisions are that, under section 142(3) of the 1999 Act, they can be arrested without a warrant. I hope that the Minister will respond to those pertinent questions.
 The fundamental question is why there is a difference. Why pick out this category? I hope that the Minister, in his response, will give a rational and suitable explanation.
I shall now move away from the three days’ timing and the notice delivery and what may cause a person to fail to comply, to the requirement that a person attend at a specified time of day or a specified hour. The proposal to shorten notice periods and give fixed times will run the risk of more missed appointments and perhaps more wasted time. We are all familiar with our GPs complaining when people do not turn up. If people are forced into a straitjacket, it will increase the risk that they will not be able to comply with the conditions that have been placed on them.
While I am on the subject of fingerprinting and this clause, will the Minister examine the wording that has been used in the drafting of the legislation? In proposed new subsection (2) the wording is
“must require him to attend”
and in (2A) it is
“may require him to attend.”
Could attendance not be by arrangement and by mutual agreement? Why must there be that dominant relationship in which an order is barked out to someone to attend? Why could attendance not be by mutual arrangement and agreement, rather than being a requirement, as currently drafted?
I am also sad to see that there is a lacuna in respect of fingerprinting. I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that appropriate personnel will be used to take the fingerprints. For example, a friend of mine, who is a devout Muslim, would not even shake my hand because I am a lady. That is understandable: it is his culture. Will the Minister reassure me that if there was an issue of culture, particularly in relation to this vulnerable group of people, there would be no repercussions and no insistence that the fingerprinting was carried out by someone inappropriate? Receiving the Minister’s reassurance on that matter during our discussion of the Bill would stand us in good stead.
I do not think that I look like a person who will be troublesome to any jurisdiction in which I travel. However, this summer, without any notice or warning whatever, when I was merely travelling through the United States of America, I had to be fingerprinted for the first time in my life. The Minister is looking at me with wide-eyed youth on his side. I do not know whether he has ever been fingerprinted. I had never been fingerprinted before in my life, but I did not require three or seven days’ notice. It was just done as a matter of course. Naturally, as a law-abiding citizen and wanting to facilitate my very swift passage through the United States of America, I raised no objections. But interestingly, my husband, who is a  senior citizen—I do not think he would mind my saying that—also had to be fingerprinted. That was a bit of a shock to his system. But even he admitted that because it was required and because it was supposed to add to our safety and security, he would not put up a fight when he had to press his fingers on to the pad.
However, I want to know whether down the line the Minister is planning to fingerprint everybody and if not, why not. Are we not going to a halfway house here without facing the reality? Home Office officials have helpfully produced a number of impact assessments to go with the Bill. I should like to refer to the partial regulatory impact assessment on data capture and sharing powers for the border agencies. I know that the Minister will be familiar with everything in that document. His hon. Friends may laugh, but the Minister is in command of his brief and he will be familiar with everything in it.
According to that document, one of the purposes and intended effects of all these new provisions is to maintain
“an accurate movement record of passengers travelling to and departing from the UK, in support of further border control functions, including risk analysis and detecting those who have no right to be in the UK and assist in the fight against terrorists and criminals.”
The phrase
“travelling to and departing from the UK”
suggests to me that down the line we will have fingerprinting in line with what is happening in the US. I would particularly like the Minister to comment on that and on the last page of that impact assessment. Paragraph 19, entitled “Competition assessment”, states:
“All other EU Member States plan to verify identity of persons crossing their borders with biometrically enabled documents. Many other countries either already use biometrics as a key element of their border control (USA, Hong Kong, Singapore for example) or plan to do so.”
Once again, that looks as if this is only a halfway house and more is coming down the road, certainly to bring us in line with other EU member states. I should like the Minister to share his thinking on this.
My final point relates to costs. I have tried to familiarise myself with the impact assessments as best I can. The document on data capture and sharing powers deals with various areas of the financial impact, such as the potential obsolescence of landing cards and other manual processes which will provide a cost saving. Another part of the document allows for the redeployment of otiose Home Office staff who would be redeployed into this area too. Could the Minister give us some idea what the costs are for this area and what the cost savings might be in other areas by moving to a more reliable and secure system? Once again, is this a halfway house before we move fully down the road to full fingerprinting and biometric details of everyone coming in and out of our country?

John Leech: I will not go over the points made by the hon. Lady, but I should like to touch on a couple of issues specifically in relation to the period of notice that people will be given for fingerprint tests. I believe  that the Government are making a large mistake by separating refugees from all other categories and suggesting that they can be called for fingerprinting within a three-day period. I shall give one brief personal example. It relates not to immigration but to planning and a letter that I once sent to my local council. I sent the letter well before the deadline for objections to a planning application, but it arrived 13 days after I had sent it, at which point the letter was out of time and could not be considered as a legitimate objection to the application.
I believe that people who are sent letters containing deadlines and days and times for fingerprinting will often receive them after that time. As a result, the system will be slowed down rather than speeded up. Many appointments will be missed and will have to be reissued, causing an administrative nightmare, whereas if we kept the existing regulations, whereby people are given seven days’ notice, we could pretty much guarantee that people would receive the notification in time and would be able to attend at some time—not at a specific time in the day, but at some point during a particular day. What clause 24 proposes—we tabled an amendment suggesting that the clause be deleted—will revert to the status quo and the powers in place under the 1999 Act. Three days’ notice is completely unworkable and I ask the Minister to think again.

Andy Burnham: I shall seek to address all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, but let me begin by introducing clause 24. Asylum claimants and their dependants are issued with an application registration card—the ARC card, which we talked about previously—when they make an asylum claim. At the moment, fingerprints are taken from the claimant and their dependants and stored on the card for identification purposes; it is a biometric identity card. However, in certain circumstances it is not possible to take fingerprints from or issue claimants with an ARC card at the point at which the application is made, for a variety of reasons. They may be asked to go to an asylum screening unit. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said, section 142 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides the Secretary of State with the power to issue a written notice that requires the principal claimant and any dependants to return to a specified place to provide fingerprints. At present, that must be at least seven days after the date of the notice. The notice must also provide the claimants with a minimum period of seven days within which they should attend. It may specify the time of day or hours during which they should attend.
Clause 24 makes two amendments to section 142 to bring it in line with our processing procedures, which have become more streamlined and more efficient since the 1999 Act was passed. First, the clause reduces the period between the date given in the notice as its date of issue and the date when an asylum seeker and any dependants can be required to attend for fingerprinting from seven days to three, as has been said. Secondly, the clause enables the Secretary of  State to specify a day on which the asylum applicant must attend for fingerprinting, which cannot be less than three days after the notice’s issue date. It removes the requirement that the applicant attend at some point during a seven-day period.
The Secretary of State will continue to have the power to specify the time of day or hours—to answer the hon. Lady’s point—during which an asylum claimant and their dependants should attend for fingerprinting, as under the existing legislation.

Cheryl Gillan: Why can that not be by agreement and arrangement, rather than by an order?

Andy Burnham: I was coming on to address some of the hon. Lady’s points. She rightly wanted to bring out the logic and the reasons behind the change, and began by asking why we are making the change, what the evidence is, and why the requirement of three days. Under article 6 of the EU directive on reception conditions, which came into force in February this year, we are obliged within three days of a claim being lodged to provide every claimant with a document issued in their name, certifying their status as an asylum seeker. In our case, there are two principal documents that can be used to confirm that: the ARC card, which I have mentioned, and a document referred to as a standard acknowledgment letter. Hon. Members may have seen those at their advice surgeries. Either can be used to satisfy that document. The standard acknowledgment is obviously a far less secure document than the ARC card.
I am not making the point that we have an EU directive and that is why we have to do it within three days, but the clear expectation is that we issue a document within that time frame, not just for the convenience of the administrative staff, but because the directive recognises that it is important for asylum seekers to have a reliable document as quickly as possible so that they gain access to the support to which they are entitled. An ARC card is important so that individuals can receive benefits via the post office or other locations. The directive is driven not only by administrative convenience but by a wish to ensure that people are documented as quickly as possible.

John Leech: On a point of clarification, documents are to be provided within three days and there have been suggestions that people should be fingerprinted within three days. Realistically, with letters being processed and sent out, it is still going to take more than three days, so it is a false argument for the Government to suggest that they have to reduce the time from seven to three days on the basis that people must be provided with the document within three days.

Andy Burnham: There are a couple of points to make. It is obviously in all our interests that multiple documents are not swirling round the system. It is much better to issue somebody with a more secure document as quickly as possible, rather than issuing standard acknowledgment letters, as well as other documents. We would rather issue one high-quality  document to people, offering proof of identity and eligibility to claim support and benefits while they are here. There is also the EU directive.
As for postal delays and the administrative chaos that could ensue, most notices are handed to individuals in person when they attend the initial interview that all asylum seekers go through. Notices are frequently not put into the post; they are frequently handed to the individual in person. That is why the change can safely be made without causing chaos.

John Leech: I want to push the Minister on this. Is he suggesting that there will be no circumstances in which documents are sent through the post?

Andy Burnham: I do not think that I was suggesting that. I hasten to point out that it is also in claimants’ interests to be documented to a high standard as quickly as possible. They can then claim the support to which they are entitled. That is in everybody’s interests, including those of the immigration and nationality directorate and the asylum seeker. That is the starting point.

Cheryl Gillan: Is not there a logic gap? The Minister says that, within three days, we can fingerprint the individuals, their children and their dependants. Then we can issue the ARC card, which will give them access to support from the National Asylum Support Service.
In throwing out some of the theories, what would happen if an individual and his or her dependants do not have the money to attend for fingerprinting? That would be rather ironic, would it not? The Minister wants to get the card to people as quickly as possible so that they will be entitled to the financial support that they deserve, yet they may not have the wherewithal to attend.

Andy Burnham: I am not saying that the notice would be received in person in every case. There may be circumstances in which it will arrive by post. We must be clear that for the claim to start to work properly, people must go through that process. It is in their direct interests that they are enabled and encouraged to do that as speedily as possible.
Many points that have been made are operational ones for the immigration and nationality directorate. They are not necessarily the concern of the Bill or other primary legislation. However, I accept the reasonable points that have been made. It is not the intention to place undue pressure on individuals to attend at a time of the system’s convenience or to make it extremely difficult for them to do so. We intend to move to a clearer system, where people are given an appointed time within a reasonable time frame, where we do not have to issue them with a temporary standard acknowledgment letter and where we can proceed straight to the ARC card. Those measures will speed up the process and make it more efficient.
I encourage hon. Members to attend an asylum screening unit, if they have not already done so, where they will see the nature of the operation. It is efficient and streamlined, but staff are trained to deal with the  sensitive nature of the cases before them. They are highly skilled at doing so, and it would not be their intention to place undue pressure on the individual.
We all have an interest in the system working. It would be in the interests of both the immigration and nationality directorate and the asylum seeker to give a specified time for claimants to attend.

Cheryl Gillan: I am going to tempt the Minister again down this path. If we are trying to reduce bureaucracy, to give people the immediacy of support and to identify people sensitively, why will he not go down the route of fingerprinting everybody, with the exception of the under-fives because their fingerprints are not be fully formed and, therefore, cannot be registered? Surely that is the simplest, most accurate and most exact route. The measure is another halfway house. I think that the fingerprinting of everybody is coming anyway and that this step is part of a process of erosion.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Lady is right that the provision does not extend to those under the age of five. It does affect all asylum claimants, however. We must be clear about that. It does not affect a particular group. The requirement applies to all asylum applicants and their dependants. I agree that that does not include those under five year, although it does affect everybody else. The majority of claimants will be issued with an ARC card at the first point they present in person or at their initial interview. We want to issue them with that document at the earliest possible time, and that is in their interests, too.
Clause 24 deals only with a minority of cases that have to be given an appointed time to return. I take the points about how the system needs to be implemented. It needs to work for both the individual and the staff who are administering it. We believe that it will achieve on both counts, but I hear the issues that have been raised.
The hon. Lady asked who would take the fingerprints and raised potential cultural issues. The immigration and nationality directorate is highly aware of those issues and care would always be taken when registering a person’s fingerprints. She broadened out the discussion and mentioned her experience on her summer holiday travelling round the US—

Cheryl Gillan: It was work.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Lady was not pleased about being fingerprinted—the first time in her life that it had happened. It made me wonder how many other Tory MPs have been fingerprinted. I am sure that you, Sir Nicholas, are not one of them, but there are allegations swirling around. However, we will not go there.
The hon. Lady asked whether we are looking forward to a world in which everyone is fingerprinted. The point about the biometric passport, which many countries are moving towards, and the e-borders  system is to have an accurate record of who comes into and who leaves the country. That is the bedrock of the e-borders system.

Cheryl Gillan: I think the Minister is saying that basically we are going to fingerprint everyone on the way in and the way out. I should like some clarification. I asked the American immigration officer who took my fingerprints how long they would keep them on their database. He appeared not to understand the question because my fingerprints are in the USA database in perpetuity.
What I thought impressive about the information-sharing aspect of the system was that the immigration official also had the details of my visa, which had expired some time ago. That gives rise to a question. I think that under the 1999 Act there is a period of time by which fingerprints have to be destroyed. Does the Minister plan on keeping all fingerprints of anyone who falls under those categories in perpetuity in order to secure our borders?

Andy Burnham: I made some light-hearted remarks a few moments ago, but there is a connotation attached to fingerprinting: some people may find it uncomfortable or intrusive. That will change, because people who have travelled to the US, as the hon. Lady has, in the past few years—certainly since 2001—will have found that it is being carried out routinely. I have not been there since that time, but I believe that at certain ports the exit controls are becoming automated so that the US immigration authorities simply match the fingerprint to the record that they held on arrival and automate that part of the process.
People are going to become more familiar with the process in the next few years. We have made it clear that regardless of what happens with identity cards and whether the House finally approves that legislation, we are moving towards a biometric passport, which ultimately will contain a chip of people’s records.
Hon. Members may ask why we are committed to that system. It is precisely because the linkage between a unique personal identifier, be it a fingerprint or iris pattern, means that each person can register for only one document. That is the core strength of the biometric system. The photo and the signature are no longer a guarantee of identity and veracity.

Cheryl Gillan: I need to press the Minister one more time on the matter. Given everything that he has said about what the future holds for the security of this country—the Identity Cards Bill is being considered at present, although it is a moot point whether it will go through—why have the Minister and the Department taken the policy and strategic overview to move increasingly to halfway houses, or 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. houses? Why has the Minister not bitten the bullet and gone the whole way if the future he has been painting for us in words is the one that we are looking forward to? It seems that there will be more waste, more bureaucracy and more room for error when the Minister’s intention is ultimately to go to the control  position whereby everyone is required to provide all their details immediately on entering or leaving the country.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Lady sounds dangerously as if she is moving towards supporting the Identity Cards Bill, which will create the national identity register, and will indeed do the things that she wants when she asks me why I will not go the whole hog. I can explain that although some people have imagined great conspiracies in the database, it simply links the basic information that is now on a passport application form to a unique biometric identifier. In doing so, not only can the authorities be more sure, the immigration officer at the desk can be more sure that the person before him is the person on the document, and the individual can be more sure that his travel document cannot be taken by someone else to go off round the world. People can have more confidence that their documents can be used only by them.
When an individual presents at an immigration desk, it is not a case of checking one fingerprint against the database every time. The immigration officer will do a one-to-one check of the chip in the passport with the biometric details before them. That is the check that will be carried out. I think that people will be reassured that their identity cannot be misappropriated.
The clause relates to fingerprints held on the ARC database. Section 141 provides for the destruction of records or prints after 10 years. I say to the hon. Lady that, with regard to immigration control, there is a purpose in keeping records for a period of time. The introduction of biometric visas in certain parts of the world has enabled the immigration and nationality directorate to compare fingerprints taken by entry clearance officers of people applying for visas. On occasion, they have been matched against asylum records and the fingerprints of people whose claims for asylum were turned down. That is relevant information to the entry clearance officers and the IND.
There is a purpose in retaining the records but at no time is it to withhold unduly from people what they are entitled to; it is to enable us to prove that people are who they say they are, which is one of the main functions of our border control systems. I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, but that is the way we are going. The e-borders system is the basis of the clauses that we are about to discuss. Embarkation and entry controls will give the authorities a clear record of people coming into and leaving the country. Both are taken care of.

Cheryl Gillan: I am sorry to have confused this with the other Bill, but the matter is important and is mentioned in the next clause. Is the Minister saying that the information that is held on me as a UK citizen on my ID card will be kept in perpetuity, but the information that is taken from an asylum seeker and their dependants will be destroyed after 10 years?

Andy Burnham: People’s asylum claims will not be held in perpetuity, but for the time in which it is relevant for them to make a claim. The valid period of  time for which to hold that data is considered to be 10 years. It is different for UK citizens; we believe that we would all benefit from being enrolled on a national identity register. That is a different matter. If we are going to introduce such a system, we need to keep a permanent record of an individual and their unique identifying characteristics. That is why there is a difference.
We have spent some time on the clause. We have strayed more widely than the clause permits, and I am grateful to you, Sir Nicholas, for that indulgence. It is important to discuss how we manage our border control and passport security in the future, and I am pleased to have been able to provide clarification. I say again to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington that it is not our intention to create a harsh or unduly punitive—[Interruption.]

Nicholas Winterton: Order. I deplore mobile telephones being set to anything but silent in Committee. I hope that I shall not hear that noise again.

Andy Burnham: I believe that I have given the hon. Gentleman the assurances he requires. I hope that the provisions in the clause will help to achieve a more efficient system, and to give people entitlement to their benefits more quickly, which is something that I am sure that he, in his heart of hearts, would support.
The clause is important, and I ask the Committee to allow it to stand part of the Bill.

John Leech: I will be brief. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. He has not assured me that there will be no problems as a result of the change. It will be impractical and unworkable to expect people to be fingerprinted within three days. In certain circumstances it will be fine, but on occasions it will not be possible and will cause further problems. We therefore do not support the clause.

Cheryl Gillan: I have been impressed with the honesty, integrity and sympathy with which the Minister has answered my questions on the clause. The provisions are important to all of us, not least because of the connotations that attach to having one’s fingerprints taken. However, I hope that what the Minister has said will reassure people outside the Committee, if not all the members of the Committee, that the process is necessary and will offer us additional security.
I appreciate that there could be some practical difficulties and, for the purpose of probing, I have tried to give the worst-case scenarios to the Minister. Despite the shortness of the notice period, I am satisfied that he has arrived at the provisions with reference to what is rolling down over us from Europe, and that there may be some merit in them. I therefore have no hesitation in telling him that, although the Liberal Democrats are pressing for a vote on the clause, I believe that my party will support it.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 2.

NOES

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Proof of right of abode

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: Briefly—[Interruption.] I am in obvious danger of sending the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality to sleep, judging from the groan that he just emitted from a sedentary position. Either that, or he is unwell and should leave the Committee.
I want to ask a couple of questions on the clause. There is no doubt that this area of legislation could do with a consolidating Bill. If we consider the list at the end of the Bill, it seems ridiculous. We can see all the legislation to which we must refer: the Immigration Acts in 1971 and 1988, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, then by way of a change, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, and then this Bill. Interestingly enough, clause 25 is slightly arrogant, and I could not let it pass by—although I understand it is a matter of drafting form—that we hear that it will be subject to the Identity Cards Act 2006.

Andy Burnham: 2005.

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister’s optimism is obviously boundless. He obviously thinks that it will come in in 2005, so there is a drafting error here, to which we shall return on Report and Third Reading. I urge Ministers to think about doing some consolidation work, because all that legislation is a minefield to get through.
I want to make a couple of points. First, the proposed subsection (9)(e) mentions “a certificate of entitlement”. Can the Minister confirm what that would include? Does it cover work permits? I am interested in knowing what the ambit of “certificate of entitlement” is. I could send a letter saying that my friend is entitled to right of abode here, so I would like that point clarified. Secondly, proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) refer to
“a United Kingdom passport describing him as a British citizen,”
and
“a United Kingdom passport describing him as a British subject with the right of abode in the United Kingdom”.
Surely it should just be a United Kingdom passport. Is not the description of “a British citizen” and
“a British subject with the right of abode”
otiose? That understanding is probably the result of my ignorance, rather than the poor drafting of officials. I should like an explanation from the Minister.

Neil Gerrard: I was interested in the reference to the Identity Cards Act, which does not yet exist. Is one of the implications here that it would be anticipated that the identity card would be used as a travel document, in the way that is the case in the countries operating the Schengen agreement, which does not currently apply to the UK? Secondly, I noticed that proposed paragraphs (c) and (d) refer to information that will be on the identity card. That is an interesting point, since I do not recall anything in the Identity Cards Bill or in the debate on the Bill that specified what information would be on the card. We seem to be specifying in this Bill the information that will be on a card, which is covered by a completely separate Bill that still has to find its way through Parliament.

Tony McNulty: I welcome you to the Committee again, Sir Nicholas. First, on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, schedule 1 to the other legislation describes only what may be on the identity card register. It includes and has always included immigration status as part of the data. That is clear in the schedule.

Neil Gerrard: There was clarity about what data were going to be on the register, but that is different from what data will be on the card.

Tony McNulty: The terminology in proposed new paragraphs (c) and (d) refers to the Act—what we hope will be an Act—and that of course talks about the interplay between the cards and the database. I think that my hon. Friend said in the debate on the Identity Cards Bill that it could more readily be called the identity register Bill. I assure him, whether he likes it or not, that the terminology relates to what is in the database under what we hope will be the Identity Cards Act.
This is simply a tidying-up clause. I know that some Opposition Members bristle any time that a Minister says, “Don’t worry; it is just a little tidying-up clause”, but it is and it is overdue. For example, the category of “citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” has not existed since 1983, when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force, yet the reference remains on the statute book. I have said before—I cannot remember to whom—that I agree with the notion that at some time in the near future, legislative time permitting, there should be consolidation to bring many of these Acts together. Every time that we bring in another Act—they do come along with alarming frequency—it  highlights lacunae or mistakes in previous Acts going back to 1971 and beyond. The point about the constant tidying-up, of which this clause is part, is well made and I support it. However, the clause is, as the title says, principally about the right of abode rather than anything else.
There is a clear distinction between a British citizen and a British subject, which I shall come to in a moment. A certificate of entitlement is simply about the entitlement to that abode and is invariably a little sticker, rather like a visa, in a non-UK passport. There will be historical reasons why people have the right of abode but choose not to have or are not eligible for a UK citizen’s passport in the full sense. Partly, this is a historical trail. We need a reference in the first instance to a UK passport describing the person as a British citizen. The next reference is to a British subject with the right of abode in the UK.

Cheryl Gillan: May I put it to the Minister the other way round? Could there be a situation in which someone was the holder of a valid UK passport but did not have the right of abode in the UK?

Tony McNulty: Yes, in the terms that I have just laid out. It may be that someone has the right of access with a non-UK passport and needs the certification of entitlement. There are people with UK passports who, as I have suggested, are subjects rather than full citizens and will have the right of abode but not all the other rights afforded under citizenship. The clause is just about tidying these things up. The certification of entitlement covers another category. Yes, of course it is entirely appropriate to put in the elements about ID cards that will come, but if we are talking about arcane references, the principal point is that the clause replaces in its entirety section 3(9) of the Immigration Act 1971, which of course has been amended at various times since 1971 but talks in terms about something called patriality.
Mrs. Gillanrose—

Tony McNulty: I shall happily give way to the hon. Lady if she can tell me what patriality is in all its glory.

Cheryl Gillan: Perhaps matriality but not patriality. I want to take the Minister back—

Tony McNulty: I gave way for the hon. Lady to define patriality.

Cheryl Gillan: No, I shall not do that. I understand that someone could be a UK passport holder and not be entitled to a right of abode in this country, so where are the people with a valid UK passport who cannot have a right of abode in this country?

Tony McNulty: There may well the odd case like that, but I do not think that I was suggesting that. We need to maintain the distinction between those three principal categories: a UK citizen, a UK subject with a right of abode and those with a certificate of entitlement in a non-UK passport. There may well have been since 1971, although it is less and less the case, a whole series of people who fell into the category that the hon. Lady suggests through British overseas  citizenship and other terminologies that are becoming less and less important. The clause goes back to the original 1971 clause and all the subsequent amendments to bring it bang up to date. If I protest unduly that the clause only tidies up, the hon. Lady will view what is going on with deep suspicion.
Patriality, by the by, simply means a right of abode in the UK, but I had to look it up about three times. It has nothing to do with patriarchy, although some might suggest otherwise.

Henry Bellingham: I have been listening to the Minister with great interest. Obviously to get into this country, people have to come through a port of entry. May a holder of a UK passport as a resident of an overseas territory go through the EU channel or must he go through the other channel at points of entry? That is important to these people who feel great loyalty to this country.

Tony McNulty: It is an interesting point. However, I am sure that you, Sir Nicholas, and the Committee might lynch me, at least metaphorically, if we dwelt unduly on it. I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will find out momentarily. Certainly, overseas territory citizens have no right of abode in this country. That is precisely what I meant when I said that some categories of people, who do not have a UK passport but a version of it such as an overseas territories passport, do not have a right of abode. I hope to find out shortly whether they go through the blue channel, rather than the green or red. However, that is not germane to the clause, which simply tidies up and makes clear what is required for proof of right of abode.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 - Provision of information to immigration officers

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 115, in clause 26, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
‘()The Secretary of State may make an order under this paragraph only if satisfied that the nature of the information sought is such that there are likely to be circumstances in which it can be required under subsection (2) without breaching Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)).’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 117, in clause 27, page 13, line 38, leave out
‘there are likely to be circumstances in which’.
No. 131, in clause 31, page 16, line 17, at end insert—
‘()The Secretary of State may make an order under subsection (4) only if satisfied that the nature of the information sought is such that there are likely to be circumstances in which it can be required under subsection (2) without breaching Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)).’.

John Leech: There is an error on the amendment paper. Amendment No. 117 relates to clause 27, page 13, line 38. My copy of the amendment paper refers to line 8.

Nicholas Winterton: Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that the amendment paper that I have is correct? We are grateful to him for raising the issue, but I assure him that the Committee now has the amendment paper with amendment No. 117 correct in its entirety.

John Leech: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I am working off yesterday’s papers.
Amendments Nos. 115 and 131 are probing amendments that place safeguards on the exercise of powers in clauses 26 and 31. The wording of the proposed subsection is taken from clause 27. If it was thought necessary to include clause 27(7) in a Bill that is already certified as complying with the Human Rights Act 1998, why not do the same in clauses 26 and 31? In what circumstances does the Secretary of State suggest that the provision is necessary in clause 27 but not in clauses 26 or 31?
The purpose of amendment No. 117 is to rewrite clause 27(7). Instead of stating that
“The Secretary of State may make an order specifying a kind of information under subsection (5)(a) only if satisfied that the nature of the information is such that there are likely to be circumstances in which it can be required under subsection (2) without breaching Convention rights”,
subsection (7) would read:
“The Secretary of State may make an order specifying a kind of information under subsection (5)(a) only if satisfied that the nature of the information is such that it can be required under subsection (2) without breaching Convention rights”.
The amendment probes the drafting of the clause. The drafting appears to permit the Secretary of State to make an order if he can envisage circumstances in which requirement of the information detailed in subsection (5)(a) would not breach human rights. Even in this particular case, he knows that that is not so. We should also like the Secretary of State’s assurance that he must be satisfied that requiring information in the cases covered by the order will not breach convention rights.

Andy Burnham: Clause 26 is one of the first clauses to lay the legal basis for the e-borders scheme, so, in that respect, it is an important clause. As members of the Committee will see, the clause details the type of information that border agencies can request from transport operators. The clause deals specifically with the provision of information to immigration officers, but two of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments cover subsequent clauses, so I shall also talk about the provision of information to police, as well as the clause’s more general powers.
The purpose of amendment No. 115, as the hon. Gentleman said, is to mirror the requirements that are already contained in clauses 27 and 28 in order to make explicit that any request for information under paragraph 27 of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 must comply with the Human Rights Act.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no need to introduce such a requirement, as all requests from an immigration officer under schedule 2 to the 1971 Act must comply with the Human Rights Act. As he will see, the Bill is structured such that clause 26 amends the 1971 Act, whereas clauses 27 and 28 are new provisions. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the powers in schedule 2—powers already contained in the 1971Act—must be compliant. For that reason, there is no need to take that requirement from clauses 27 and 28 into clause 26. I assure him that the fact that we have included it in those two further clauses—I hope that he welcomes that—indicates that there is no wish to evade the principles of the Human Rights Act, which this Government passed.

John Leech: Why has it been decided that the requirement is necessary in clauses 27 and 28, but not in clause 26?

Andy Burnham: I think that I explained that clause 26 amends the 1971 Act, which is compliant with the Human Rights Act. The way in which immigration service staff operate must be compliant with that Act. That answers the hon. Gentleman’s question, and if he looks at the Bill, he will see that clauses 27 and 28 create new powers for the police in respect of passenger, crew and freight information. I hope that he makes that distinction. As I said, the powers have been included, and I hope that he will take that as a sign of good faith. We want to ensure that there is no doubt that the clauses are compliant, which is why there is no need to replicate in clause 26 the duty that we have placed in clauses 27 and 28.
Amendment No. 117 concerns a slightly different point: compliance with convention rights when specifying information to be set out by order. Clause 27(7) says:
“The Secretary of State may make an order specifying”
what passenger, crew or service data may be obtained
“only if he is satisfied that the nature of the information”
is such—and this is the key phrase—
“that there are likely to be circumstances in which it can be required ... without breaching Convention rights”.
If I understand the effect of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment correctly, it would raise the bar slightly by deleting the phrase,
“there are likely to be circumstances in which”.
He has raised an interesting point, but I want to explain why we would resist that higher test for the disclosure of information, which is allowed by the order made by the Secretary of State. If we were to agree to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, the Secretary of State and the Treasury Minister would have to be sure that the information provided under clause 27 would not breach convention rights. They would have to be sure in advance that there would be no breach. We believe that such a test would be unworkable in practice, because the Ministers concerned would have to have absolute certainty that convention rights would not be breached.
It may help if I explain a little about how e-borders will work. They will work sometimes by general and bulk data being made available to the immigration service and the police, which would make it extremely difficult to be able to have absolute certainty that the information provided would be fully compliant, in the way that hon. Gentleman wishes. The test that we have imposed in the clause offers sufficient protection. It means that people have to be mindful of the conditions of section 6 of the Human Rights Act. In addition, section 6 of the Act would allow a challenge where a person considered that their convention rights had been breached. The Act imposes a requirement on the police not to use the powers unless that is necessary and proportionate.
Amendment No. 131 appears to have the same intention as clause 31(5)(b). I refer the hon. Gentleman to that, because it contains the test that he seeks in amendment No. 131. The provision that he wishes to insert at the end of line 17 is already included in clause 31(5)(b) so the amendment would be entirely unnecessary.
We do not necessarily differ with the hon. Gentleman. The Government introduced the Human Rights Act and we intend that these powers should be exercised with due care and regard to the provisions of section 6 of that Act. We have enshrined it on the face of the Bill in respect of the parts where we need to, but in relation to this clause, the existing legislation is already covered by the Human Rights Act. The day-to-day operations of the immigration service are also covered by the provisions of that Act. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my reasoning and withdraw his amendment.

John Leech: Given that explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I shall be brief. We have gone over many aspects of the clause. It is probably not understood by everyone that the Secretary of State may make an order requiring captains of arriving ships or aircraft to provide immigration officers with a passenger list showing the names and nationality of those arriving and the particulars of the crew. Now we are dealing with leaving ships too.
The Minister will know that my party’s proposal to reintroduce full embarkation controls is still our policy. Are these new powers a substitute for reintroducing embarkation controls? This passenger information power is not new. There are substantial powers in the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002. They oblige disclosure on a great number of issues, far beyond the names and addresses of passengers, and properly so. It might be helpful if the Minister could let me know, if not today then in a letter, how often those powers have been used and with what results.
I have a few questions about the powers in this clause. Although there is an offence under clauses 27 and 28 of not providing information, there seems to be no provision for a failure under clause 26 to be an offence. If the requirement in clause 26 is not carried out, is it an offence?
There is also a slight difference between clauses 26 and 27 to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention. The responsible person under clause 26 is the owner or agent of the aircraft or ship, and the captain. Under clause 27 the responsible persons are different. They do not include the captain of the ship. Why is the captain involved in clause 26, but not clause 27? Does the Minister accept that there might be some difficulty for a captain of an aircraft who might be faced with this kind of information very late in the day? How far in advance and how long after the event can it be sought? Could it be sought during the course of the flight? If the information is not provided, could the authorities instruct the carrier not to carry the passenger in question?
Under paragraph (2)(b), further particulars are required because the passenger list must merely show the names and nationality or citizenship of the passengers. In relation to the crew, I assume that the “particulars” of members of the crew are limited to exactly the same requirements—namely, name and nationality. Does that have a cost implication for carriers?
I have spoken in previous debates about the cost implication for carriers of having to provide information about their passenger lists—photocopying burdens and so on. I had a helpful meeting earlier this summer with a company called Clove Business Systems, which supplies the passport-copying technology being trialled by the Home Office. The company had read my remarks about the financial burden on carriers and told me that its systems could be very cost-effective, and effective in every other way, too. Will the Minister confirm to me in writing that his discussions with that company are still continuing as it has an excellent approach to the matter? I look forward to hearing from him in that respect and I hope that he can deal with the questions that I have raised.

Tony McNulty: I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. We have had lengthy discussions about generating the information in the first instance and on what sort of laws and powers will subsequently prevail. Many of the points that he raises are entirely fair and I will deal with them.
Clause 26 is about providing information on passenger lists and crew in advance of arrival. On the hon. Gentleman’s more general point, I know from a previous manifestation as a Transport Minister that we were able to stop or turn back flights under security and terrorism legislation. Those powers prevail but, within the context of the Bill, they are not required as they are available elsewhere. The e-borders and border management aim to push back the border to international airports around the world before passengers even get on the plane, which must be right and proper.
The hon. Gentleman is right in broad terms—[Interruption.] There’s that chair again, but nice and quiet this time. The e-borders and border management projects effectively restore embarkation controls and I make no political point in that respect. The last Conservative Government started the removal of embarkation controls and this Government carried it on because, in simple terms, with more than 100 million people coming in and out of the country, a paper provision for embarkation controls was no longer appropriate. In crude terms, there is much more going on than the hon. Gentleman suggests. The proposal utilises technology and resources to restore that facility so that we have a much better picture of who is coming in and out of the country and, in an intelligence-led, proactive way, can start to target our resources.
The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about the captain’s role and I will find out about it. I suspect that it has much to do with the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about clause 26 amending the Immigration Act 1971, whereas clauses 27 and 28 introduce new powers. Clause 26 amends paragraph 27 of the Immigration Act 1971 and relates to the passengers or crew on a ship or aircraft. It widens the provision so that it applies to a responsible person—it refers to the captain—who can be required to provide information. In one sense, therefore, clause 26 is outlined in terms of previous Acts, whereas clauses 27 and 28 cover new powers in the current context. I am sorry to dwell on all three clauses, but they are interlocked.
 We want to reach a stage at which—to address the wider points that the hon. Gentleman makes—this is not mistakenly called advanced passenger information. The hon. Gentleman made a point about offence. He is quite right that a later clause—clause 29—refers to clauses 27 and 28. That is because the offences are caused under clauses 27 and 28, whereas clause 26 is more about outlining the nature of the information that should be made available to immigration officers. Clause 27 elaborates police powers in relation to passenger and crew information, clause 28 does the same for freight, and clause 29 covers offences in relation to clauses 27 and 28. Clause 26 is simply the definitional building block that bridges the existing law and the new powers outlined in clauses 27 and 28.
Having addressed all the points that I marked down, and having said that I would deal with the others in writing, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Passenger and crew information: police powers

John Leech: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in clause 27, page 13, line 30, leave out ‘generally or’.
I shall be brief. The effect of the amendment would be to prohibit the Secretary of State from making orders that apply generally. Will the Minister clarify whether passenger information orders under paragraph 17(2) of schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, as amended, and the Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002, include the power to make orders that apply generally, rather than requiring that a specific written order be made in respect of each vehicle? If that is the case, why was it felt necessary to take a different approach as far as this clause is concerned?

Tony McNulty: Broadly, the powers under schedule 7 of the 2000 Act are restricted to the counter-terrorism context and to an officer’s role as the examining officer. They also allow only specified information to be requested. Through clause 27 we seek to broaden those powers, not just in terms of moving beyond counter-terrorism to include serious crime and general policing powers and requests, but also in terms of experience. It might be the case that the information required concerns a specific flight, which would already be covered under the terrorism legislation. However, if we are to move to a proactive intelligence-led approach, we should take into account that the information required might in some cases—rare cases, I would think—relate to the carrier rather than to a specific flight. More generally, the difficulties and problems in terms of serious crime—immigration-related or otherwise—or terrorism might be specific to a route rather than a specific flight on a route. We think that if the clause were limited in the way intended by the amendment, that would not only undermine all that we seek to do in relation to e-borders and the border management programme and gathering information in general, but work against what the entire Committee sees as right in terms of gathering the information.

John Leech: On that point, can the Minister clarify whether he means a specific airline or route? Surely the word “specific” could have been included, rather than “generally”?

Tony McNulty: I do not think that that is the case, given that we are talking about one or more specified ships or aircraft. Clearly, by definition, that would be time-limited, or if not, so open that it might as well be general anyway. We need a broader definition so that there is no confusion. In some cases, it might be a general requirement under subsection (2), but in others, it may be specific to one or more specified ships or aircraft. All that we are doing with e-borders and border management is to afford the police and the immigration services as much flexibility as possible. I do not see any need or desire—short of undermining  what we are trying to do with e-borders and border management—to get so narrowly defined as to leave out “may apply generally”.
We want to get to a stage at which, by using technology and this sort of information request, we can remove any potential notional threat as far away from our borders as possible. As I say, it is more often than not the specific route that affords that flexibility, and the concentration on a route, based on broad intelligence. However, in some cases, for completeness, I include the point about carriers. That is something above and beyond simply a specified number of ships or aircraft.

John Leech: May I push the Minister a little further on that point? Is he thinking about every aeroplane coming from a specific destination, or about specific airlines or specific routes? Is he thinking about every aeroplane coming from destination x coming into the country?

Tony McNulty: In many cases, without going into substantive detail, that happens now. It is simply a matter of fact: the gangs involved in serious crime and drugs are invariably ahead of the curve and change their routes accordingly. It is a matter of fact that at any given time, some routes in and out of the country are more prone to specific criminal activities than others, be it drugs, trafficking or whatever else. We think that the flexibility afforded by the simple little phrase “apply generally” allows the police the flexibility to, on the one hand, pursue particular routes on an intelligence-led basis and, frankly, on the other, to build up and generate that intelligence in the first place. It will then not be on an ad hoc and anecdotal basis; once e-borders are in place, the intelligence basis of activities will be substantially different.
With other dimensions, we have an excellent network of airline liaison officers—we do not have enough of them by any means, but I have seen plenty of them, although I am not a globetrotter—that is strong and growing. They are entirely voluntary professionals, working with carriers, which enhances and boosts our intelligence-based focus on specific flights or routes. Although I am sure that it is not the intention, the amendment would narrow the scope and potential for e-borders to work as effectively as we want them to do. I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention, so I ask him to withdraw the amendment and allow clause 27 to stand part of the Bill.

John Leech: With the Minister’s reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I shall attempt to be brief. I have a few specific questions first. The Minister will know that the partial regulatory impact assessment says:
“The timescales involved in bringing forward this legislation have meant that we have been unable to consult fully with industry on the specific detail of the provisions prior to introduction.”
Has it now been possible to consult industry fully on these matters? Has the Small Business Service said anything about these provisions? There is an element of rush. If the Minister cannot deal with any of these matters now, I would be happy for him to write to me.
Secondly, how long will data collected under the clause be kept and stored and with whom could those data be shared? This is a very wide clause, obliging the owner or agent of a ship—I raise the point about the captain again—to comply with any requirement imposed by a police officer to provide “passenger or service information”. Interestingly, passenger or service information is defined as information that relates to passengers—that does not help us much.
There are one or two issues in this regard. The limit, under subsection (4), is that the information must be “for police purposes”. I looked up what police purposes means in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; I remember the debates on the issue quite well. Police purposes are defined under section 21 of that Act as any of the following:
“the prevention ... of criminal offences”—
which is perfectly proper—
“safeguarding national security”—
which is also perfectly proper—and
“such other purposes as may be specified.”
That strikes me as an extremely wide provision. How many other purposes have been specified pursuant to that section and what is the overlap with the clause? Can the Minister assure me that the information to be provided is limited to dates and places of birth and full names and addresses, or how wide could the information be? Is there a time limit on providing it? One is not set out in the Bill. Is there the danger that a badly intentioned Government—not that this is one—or authorities could go on a fishing expedition? The question is a parallel to that about the Identity Cards Bill: for what purposes can the information be collected? Is it limited to suspected immigration issues, crime and terror, or is there a wider network of persons who may be able to share in the information provided?
Finally, do the persons about whom the information is collected have a right to know that information about them has been collected and passed on to authorities, or will they be blissfully unaware of that for ever?

Tony McNulty: Again, the hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. Let me try to deal with them. There has been a meeting with key industry stakeholders. As I implied when responding on the previous occasion, those talks are ongoing and have been very productive. In addition, a letter summarising the proposals and providing details of where to access the legislation and the partial RIA was sent to many stakeholders. A number of follow-up meetings took place with air, sea and rail carriers, trade organisations, handling agents and airport and seaport operators. The meetings considered the provision in more detail and discussed a number of the more practical issues, and there were comments on the partial RIA as well as further discussions on e-borders as it moves into a new phase.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that those discussions will continue. Clearly, we need the industry onside in these matters. The consultation process on the Bill finished on 30 September, but discussions are continuing. Because these things are interwoven, let me say now that specific concerns of the freight industry, rather than more general passenger carriers, have since been discovered through consultation. Many of the Government amendments to clause 28 are a direct response to that consultation. The point on consultation is therefore well made.
Many of the hon. Gentleman’s other points are entirely fair. It is not the same as the debate on the Identity Cards Bill, in the sense that advance passenger information is entirely time-limited. As I have already confirmed, extremely limited information is available in advance on what passengers are on what plane at what time on any given day of the year. The wider issue of people travelling, and the nature and regularity of that travel, can be garnered from elsewhere.
Clause 27 is about broadening the nature of the information available to include e-borders and the border management programme system. The clause goes beyond the information acquisition powers that are currently available under the Terrorism Act 2000. Those powers are extremely limited.
There has been that degree of consultation. Concerns about data retention are unfounded in the sense of the limited and immediate nature of the data. Industry’s concerns have been recognised, and we shall continue to work with it. It is entirely fair to say that, as e-borders and the border management programme unfold, we must make people aware that the authorities are likely to hold advance passenger information and passenger record information.
We can talk about the practicalities of that and about making people aware in advance that that information is held. However, rather like the constant repetition of themes in the debate on the Identity Cards Bill, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the provisions in the Data Protection Act 1998 are as relevant to this Bill as those in the Identity Cards Bill are. In accordance with the Data Protection Act, the information cannot lawfully be stored for any longer than is necessary. That is the braces part of a belt-and-braces approach. It is very time-limited information, which we want to use proactively and in an intelligence-led fashion. We do not wish to use it for fishing.
The bulk of the information is potentially enormous, and that will be a complete waste of valuable time and resources. Having given those assurances, I urge that clause 27 stand part of the Bill. I shall mention the specifics about consultation with the freight lobby when we look at clause 28.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Freight information: police powers

Tony McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in clause 28, page 14, line 4, leave out ‘and aircraft’ and insert ‘, aircraft and vehicles’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 109 to 111.

Tony McNulty: As I suggested in my previous contribution, the amendment was tabled because of the interruption that the general election caused. We were unable to conduct external consultation on the provisions, as the hon. Member for Woking said in debate on clause 27.
We have since held detailed discussions with the industry. It raised concerns that owners or agents or ships or aircrafts were, in the main, unlikely to be able to comply fully with the clause as drafted, because they either do not hold or do not have access to detailed information on the consignments that they carry.
I remind hon. Members that this refers to freight. Although carriers may hold relevant information on how goods are being transported, other parties involved in the freight supply chain, such as the importer or exporter or their agents, would be best placed to provide information on the consignments. Amendments Nos. 108, 109, 110 and 111 simply reflect those concerns on the face of the Bill.

Henry Bellingham: Can the Minister help me on that point?

Tony McNulty: I shall try my very best.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister said that the interruption caused by the general election led to the Government having continued discussions with the different stakeholders. The Bill was published on 22 June. While I am all for the Government making every effort to get a Bill correct in detail, I am concerned at the number of Government amendments that have been tabled, given that the Bill was published well after the general election.

Tony McNulty: It is a fair point. Either that, or I am in a generous mood. We felt that an early June publication date some six weeks after the election was more appropriate, with the caveat that more work needed doing, so that prior to the summer and a substantive parliamentary stage people had a chance to see what was in it. It should be remembered that in the first instance we published the five-year strategy in February and that informs much of what is in the Bill.
It is a matter of choice. The hon. Gentleman is entirely fair on that point. We could have waited until September or October before getting the Bill into the public domain. We choose otherwise, with the caveat that the Government do not know everything and get everything right all the time. The Whip looks shocked and so I shall pay for that later. The second caveat is that, having published something, we are still open to dialogue especially when it impacts on people so much.
We think that clause 28, as we propose to amend it, is all the better for that substantive scrutiny. I suspect that we would have been more than open to those concerns from the industry, whether we had published the Bill in June or September. It is merely a matter of timing, but it is a fair point. People have to take a view on that, as we have done. As amended by these amendments and informed by the freight industry, the clause will be much more robust.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 109, in clause 28, page 14, line 7, leave out
‘the owner or agent of a ship or aircraft’
and insert
‘a person specified in subsection (2A)’.
No. 110, in clause 28, page 14, line 9, at end insert—
‘(2A)The persons referred to in subsection (2) are—
(a)in the case of a ship or aircraft, the owner or agent,
(b)in the case of a vehicle, the owner or hirer, and
(c)in any case, persons responsible for the import or export of the freight into or from the United Kingdom.’.
No. 111, in clause 28, page 14, line 26, leave out ‘or aircraft,’ and insert ‘, aircraft or vehicles,’.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

John Leech: I should like to ask the Minister why the clause is part of the Bill. The Bill is supposed to be about immigration, asylum and nationality but the clause appears to be solely about freight. I cite the example of the 58 Chinese immigrants who died in a sealed container. That information would not have been readily available if details were requested on what that ship was carrying. The clause does not relate to the Bill and I seek clarification of why it has been included.

Tony McNulty: If it did not relate to the Bill, parliamentary counsel and the House authorities would have ruled the thing out of order. The hon. Gentleman answers his own question. Freight is utilised and exploited for people trafficking. I pass no comment, for obvious reasons, on the example cited by the hon. Gentleman, but information on freight is absolutely essential in fighting serious crime such as smuggling, immigration offences and people trafficking. If the hon. Gentleman cannot see that, he is being obtuse.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Offence

Tony McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in clause 29, page 15, line 6, at end insert
‘in England and Wales or 6 months in Scotland or Northern Ireland’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 64.

Tony McNulty: The amendments reflect, in a tidier fashion, the differences in penalties and sentences from those that were originally intended. It is another example of a listening Government who, having recognised the mistake in legalese, correct it. I commend the amendments and the clause to the Committee.

Humfrey Malins: Would it be appropriate to ask the Minister if he considers that because these matters could be complicated and serious, there should have been a provision for them to be triable on indictment in the Crown court as well as in the magistrates court because of the increased penalties? It is just a small point.

Tony McNulty: I shall not go into that now but I am more than happy to look at it and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 64, in clause 29, page 15, line 9, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. McNulty.]

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Duty to share information

Tony McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in clause 31, page 15, line 39, after ‘State’, insert ‘and the Treasury jointly’.

Nicholas Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
Government amendments Nos. 31, 32, 42, 44, 47 and 50 to 52.

Tony McNulty: These are very important matters, which we will not be able to discuss in the 20 seconds left before we adjourn. The powers in the clause in respect of the duty to share information far more readily reflect what we want to do than otherwise. The amendments use the word “Treasury” quite a lot, which is always a good thing for a Minister who is not a Treasury Minister.

It being One o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.